I'm suggesting that the existence of solr.xml is unnecessary. Kind of like we used to do, if we don't find one in solrHome, just use <solr/>. It would also be reasonable to allow an empty file. But no, I'm not suggesting that we move solr.xml anywhere or move it to a properties file or anything else. I was just a bit surprised that we don't need anything in that file and thought it would be worth getting people's opinions.
bq: BTW, it would be nice to do the same for solrconfig.xml. And core.properties, while you’re at it. You have an exaggerated sense of my ambition level <G> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Jack Krupansky <[email protected]>wrote: > Is your question about whether the empty file should be needed if the > user accepts all defaults for SolrCloud, logging, the shard handler > factory, and the other defaults for the top-level values, or are you > suggesting an alternate location for all of those values if non-defaults > are desired? Or, maybe to switch to a solr.properties file since the > structure is now rather flat? (Although the shard handler factory has a > structured plugin configuration.) > > The one advantage of requiring the file is to catch typos like naming the > file sol.xml or Solr.xml (for non-Windows, non-Mac) or solar.xml. Or even > solr.properties. > > Otherwise, I’m content to have the file be optional provided that the > defaults are all sensible. > > BTW, it would be nice to do the same for solrconfig.xml. And > core.properties, while you’re at it. > > -- Jack Krupansky > > *From:* Erick Erickson <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 12:42 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* So do we even need solr.xml any more? > > As an experiment while writing a test, I played around with solr.xml and > defined it this way: > <solr/> > > Starts up and runs just fine in core discovery mode since it defaults to > core discovery mode in the absence of a <cores> tag. Of course all the > defaults are used and you better have core.properties files in the right > place and all that, but... > > So does it make sense to officially support a "no solr.xml" option? > Removing solr.xml entirely barfs with "solr.xml does not exist in > /Users/Erick/apache/trunk/solr/example/solr/solr.xml cannot start Solr" and > an empty solr.xml results in an XML parsing error. > > I don't have strong feelings either way, but thought I'd throw it out for > people to kick around. > > Worth a JIRA? > > Erick >
